This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
The Proz archive, database have no records which contain such precious information like placed on "ain't" in this thread by Hellena Chavarria in the reference area (yes, this one area where Ms. Callagher named me - the spoonfeeding beginner - which is certainly not against the Proz site rules). Anyway, bearing in mind Hellena's contribution, it was worth being punished with the reminder.
As it's been said, the answer was found elsewhere, not the answer is not acceptable. I will not take advantage of the help from the Proz EN-EN native translators, only the Internet - as they advised me here. Thus the answer was found elsewhere, on the Internet, under kind advice. No next time is foreseen.
are you relieved? Mr. Phil says here that he's from the USA. I wanted to correct a "madame", but I thought you wouldn't notice it. Shame, being French is very cool.
You have effectively discouraged me from visiting the EN/EN pair.
"unfriendly, aggressive people here pretending to be linguistic profesionals" Well really now! That has really escalated! I get insulted because I ask for explanations? Thanks for giving a reason though it still doesn't explain much so why would I be "happy"? Presumably you have some workarounds using Braille and text-to-speech software. You're clearly able to type and post videos and uncalled-for insults. And want to argue about what form of football Phil is referring to (clearly no-hands soccer as he's English). Yes, American, Gaelic, and Australian Rules football all use hands and feet but also have those tags in front to distinguish them from each other I am not French so not "Madame"
I am blind (happy for the answer Madame Gallagher?). I expected native help for my curiosity about the language of Shakespeare, but I meet some unfriendly, aggressive people here pretending to be linguistic profesionals. This wasn't the case many years ago, but maybe we've all grown old.
Thank you kmtext and Jennifer for your valuable contributions!
The reason why so many of us find your questions annoying is that you're not playing by the rules. Imagine we're playing football and I keep picking up the ball in my hands. You could ignore this, or you could tell me that you don't like what I'm doing. Which would you do?
I see AT has beaten me to it. What is your "serious reason" for not being able to Google? And why ask all these questions about grammar without explaining why you are doing so? I am not being "unkind" as you seem to believe but we are all supposedly language professionals here so it would be nice to see evidence of that.
Kudoz is intended to be of help for people with "difficult translation terms" and askers are expected to do their own research prior to posting. Certainly not intended "to explain grammar rules" Perhaps you should read all the rules? 2.9 Guidelines: "Help" KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help after having searched the KudoZ term search and other resources. When asking a question, sufficient context should be provided. Even when there is no other context, the subject area and type of document should be indicated. It can be helpful to enter sentences or paragraphs where the term in question occurs. See a more detailed description here.
is available simply by googling the term. It's called prior research and the site expects users to try this first. 2.9 Guidelines: "Help" KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help after having searched the KudoZ term search and other resources. When asking a question, sufficient context should be provided. Even when there is no other context, the subject area and type of document should be indicated. It can be helpful to enter sentences or paragraphs where the term in question occurs. See a more detailed description here.
RE: Asker gives no context or reason for asking so this answer is fine Is there any special context, not to mention reason, needed in order to explain grammar rules? Thank you!
Explanation: Ain't is only used in the present tense. It's a contraction of "are not" or "am not". The past tense equivalents would be wasn't or weren't
kmtext United Kingdom Local time: 11:04 Native speaker of: English, Gaelic PRO pts in category: 40
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you very much, kmtext!
No context since I asked for the grammar rules.
Reason: be like Anglo-Saxon :)
peer agreement (net): +2
